The 1992 Dodge Viper donated by Chrysler to the South Puget Sound Community College for educational purposes is one of 93 that the automaker now wants to crush because it says the cars are no longer relevant as instructional tools. The Pugent Sound car is interesting because it’s a coupe and the production GTS coupe wasn’t available until the 1996 model year. Moreover, the Viper’s VIN identifies it as #4 and the car lacks a speed limiter as well as the production Viper’s standard emissions package.

In the wake of media reports about the destruction of these Vipers, including YouTube videos (see below) of a couple of the cars being ripped apart, Chrysler issued a statement on its website contending that none of the Vipers slated to be crushed has any historical significance:

About 10 years ago, Chrysler Group donated a number of Dodge Viper vehicles to various trade schools for educational purposes. As part of the donation process, it is routine, standard procedure – and stipulated in our agreements – that whenever vehicles are donated to institutions for education purposes that they are to be destroyed when they are no longer needed for their intended educational purposes.

With advancements in automotive technology over the past decade, it is unlikely that these vehicles offer any educational value to students.

We definitely understand and appreciate the historical significance of the Viper. And, we are sure to maintain any of the legendary models and designs for historic purposes. It’s our heritage, so of course we take great pride in preserving it.

However, none of the vehicles at the schools fit into this category.

Also, Chrysler Group has no record of any legal proceedings involving Dodge Viper vehicles donated to educational institutions being involved in accidents and product liability lawsuits.

To recap, the Vipers in question have no significant historical value, have not been involved in any accidents and serve no educational purpose – which is what they were designed to do at first.

The author of the petition, a former student and current staff member at South Puget Sound Community College, noted that the order from Chrysler came in the wake of misuse of the Vipers by other educational institutions and that not every college that takes part in the program should be punished as a result.

These Vipers are not just cars; they are the pride and joy of student and instructor alike. The Viper at South Puget Sound Community College is our prize jewel, and an inspiration. This and all the other Vipers are worth more than any new Dodge Charger or Chrysler 300 and most other new models. But dollar value is not it, not for us. This Viper has a dollar amount on it sure, One speaking to its immense value as a marketing tool for our program, when we recruit new and future students from high schools and middle schools. The real value in the vehicle for us though, is being so near, and able to revel in the monstrously vivacious beauty of what has been for most young men and women, a dream car. These dreams for some are now memories of posters, TV, advertisement, and in rare cases drive byes, for us, it’s tangible, real, and hard to part with if they’re just going to crush it. The students and staff spend a lot of time loving on and caring for this car just so that sounds, operates and looks as good as it can.

In addition to the online petition, a Twitter hashtag #SavetheVipers has also sprung up, that has also garnered a response from Chrysler maintaining that it doesn’t destroy significant automobiles.

Auto museums serve an important role in the collector car world. They allow enthusiasts to drool over cars they might never get a chance to own, yes, but they also provide historical context to automobiles, and they help build appreciation for older vehicles among younger generations and non-enthusiasts. So it’s easy to understand why enthusiasts can get a little sensitive when word comes down that a museum has decided to deaccession vehicles from its collection, as happened with the recently sold Fangio Mercedes-Benz W196 and is going on now with the Petersen Automotive Museum‘s collection; we almost feel that museums are a collective expression and that the vehicles within are public treasures.

But the truth is, while (most) museums are non-profit endeavors, (most) aren’t public institutions. At the same time, museums feel the pressures of maintaining viability, visibility and relevance, so changing exhibits in and out helps keep the museum from becoming stale and forgotten, and occasionally that means selling off vehicles from the museums’ collections. That practice becomes controversial when it becomes apparent that many vehicles in auto museums were donated to the museum.

On the one hand, it’s almost standard practice: The donor gets a tax write-off, the donated vehicles get sold, the museum gets more money to keep operating and keep its collection fresh. On the other hand, we get attached to cars, and we enthusiasts don’t want to see cars treated as mere fungible items by museums established to celebrate those cars.

So let us know where you stand on the issue. Is it possible to find a balance here? Should auto museums sell off donated vehicles? If not, how should they deal with donated vehicles?